Kentucky

I am well aware that Law Enforcement can make the arrest, in most cases there is no need to go to the judge first if the skip is listed in NCIC as extraditable in which case Law Enforcement can just make the arrest, I'm talking about the Bondsman or his Agent making the arrest in situations where the State where the charges are pending will not extradite, when this happens a judge will not issue a warrant and Law Enforcement will not make the arrest because pursuant to the UCEA as it is applied in KY the skip cannot be removed from the State unless the other State will extradite, in such cases it has been my experience that the skip is out of reach unless they travel outside Kentucky.

As a new member here you should observe more and not be so quick to crticize the senior members here.

becpa, guess that is where good PR comes in. I for one get along great with all the folks that I have had to deal with when looking for and getting my skips - no matter where.
Bishopp you are correct . . . greed is what prevents a lot of things from being done.
Always great to have a FRESH VIEW ON THINGS.

_________________


Do not consider anything for your interest which makes you break your word, quit your modesty, or inclines you to any practice which will not bear the light, or look the world in the face .... Marcus Antonius

I AM Some Folks "KARMA" and A MODERATOR @ FRN

BECPA

Just a note. I cruised this website for over two months before I decided to post something in which case I had to register and become a member. In that time I read quite a bit. Your assumption was expected though.

As far as to the point of KY. KRS 440.270 states that a "bail bondsman or his agent" can only pick up his skip if a warrant has been issued first from a KY judge. So yes there are two "legal" ways of picking up a skip in KY. That is far from a "no hunt" state. Make note that this KRS was effective in 1978.

Now KRS 440.280 states in PLAIN terms how an arrest by a private citizen can occur and that if you have "reasonable information that the accused stands charged in the courts of a state with a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" you can arrest but must take "the accused before a judge with all practicable speed and complaint must be made against him under oath".

Now it would indicate that for a bail bondsman and his agent the best course of action is to go before the judge and get a warrant if ncic does not list him as extraditable as the first KRS specifically names a bail bondsman and his agent. Also KRS 440.270 states a judge "shall issue" NOT "may issue". Anyone who has dealt in CCW permits realizes the importance of the difference between the two terms.

Now if it is your contention that it does not matter what the written law states then fine. Just realize that opinion will apply in your state as well. Might as well just pack it up and quit the profession. The fact is that there will always be a "test case". How do you think Taylor Vs. Taintor came to be? You operate within the writting law. No matter how "carefull" everyone is, eventually someone somewhere will be a "test case". Maybe in the very state they have operated for many years with no "trouble". This will be because of individuals attempting to abolish the bail industry. The same thing is happening with gun rights as well as anything else a politition thinks is a way to get votes

go and read the law before you comment upon it:

www.lrc.state.ky.us/krs/titles.htm

(have you read these laws? or merely commenting based on what you have read on websites, books, and heard from other "agents"?)
The bill which I have been hearing about (and since I can not find the official amendment to the KRS I can not atttest to it's validity... this could be because they have not updated their posted info yet) makes the statement about notifiying the sherriff and KSP.


LuVonda.

Thank you. And I agree about the PR. Lots of times local law enforcement is more than willing to help. I recall awhile back that there was a skip from Indiana to Missouri. Before we went we called the local sherriffs department and spoke to the deputies there. We explained our situation and that we were in indiana and asked them if they could help us in any way. They were great and told us to come on in and they would see what they could do. We drove all the way down there and they were outstanding. Gave us pictures as well as provided last knowns (he was incarcerated at one point for assault on a police officer) and told us to call them if we thought we needed back-up. They even tried to have someone pick the guy up and detain him for us before we got there but could not find him (the fellows sister lied to them about his whereabouts). After we caught the guy they advised that they would be charging the sister. I am assuming with some type of false reporting or harboring a fugitive (I am not familiar with MO criminal law). I have dealt with law enforcment for quite some time and in general I have found that if you are upfront, honest, and respectful, they are usually willing to help. They don't like criminals any more than we do. Where you run into the politics is the upper enchelon and those with policitcal aspirations.

_________________
-The Solution-
Indiana Agency #: PI20700211
Indiana Notary Public - Exp: 12/20/13

"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong. That is your oath."
- Kingdom of Heaven

thebishopp,

I would first like to compliment you on your ability to present a well organized and articulated point of view, but it would be helpful to learn more about your background in terms of experience in private civil contract enforcement bearing in mind that civilian police work, while helpful as base training, is lacking in terms of gaining a full understanding of civil contracts as it would relate to private bail law; moreover, blanket statements without considering that not every little piece of this country, while governed by certain federal and US Supreme Court decisions, will respond in the exact same way every time, is over simplifying the trade for new people who may be tuning in--notwithstanding Kentucky specific laws.

To address certain stated positions, I offer the following:

One can argue or otherwise make the curious observation that "naysayers" have failed to organize a "magazine" while not offering a solution or plan of action to do so, which may betray a complete lack of understanding of the bail enforcement community at large; indeed, this has been brought up and has not gone forward as chronicled on this site for starters. If one is to use such an item to strenghten an argument, then one should describe why it was brought up and how the project could be done. Otherwise, it reprsents nothing more than a weak smoke and mirrors device to sway attention off of the main points.

Moreover, while I can see why a troubled past with a given system might lead one to become jaded or cynical, I am unclear on how such disclosures are relevant to bail enforcement other than lending emotion to an argument and again shifting away from and dispalying an inability to stay on point.

Mr. Martz, on the other hand, offered a simple formula that is on point, and he did so without personal, unfounded attacks--such as suggesting that people with altnernative views remain silent. To advise a put up or shut up-like argument is tell tale about one's personality inasmuch that a my way or highway thought process offers nothing more than a closed minded, off-topic argument.

To suggest that one must know the law and then use transcribed examples from codified law, in my opinion, is offering nothing more than a narrow interpretation that new people may barrow and then run into trouble as exampled by so many news accounts of bail arrests gone wrong.

While using a cliche like "hiding in the shadows" is colorful, I hardly see how it was arrived at considering that the intended focus of that "made for TV" line was intended to apply to people who have been doing the job for years with no post operation liability. Without offering your own bail enforcement experience, one is left to conclude that your "shadow" comment is nothing more than a self-reflective characterization meant to mask certain feelings of inadequate achievement in bail related fields to the extent that a remedy is to cast stones--so to speak.

"It is no big deal to do this (sic) i have never had any kind of a problem in Kentucky just follow their State Law and you will not have any problems."

The above quote sounds impressive, but how many arrests have you actually made in Kentucky as a private citizen enforcing a private bail bond contract? I personally have never physically traveled to Kentucky for the purpose of enforcing a private civil contract, so I am eager to learn from your experiences.

Now:

Before I direct my reply back on point, I think that one's argument would be best served if he or she displays an ability to stay on point, offers examples or suggestions that are based on rule of applicable law, common sense, relative history, experience, and refrains from personal attacks if for no other reason than to be fair to the argument.

Therefore:

Bail law, while still obscure to the public at large, is, nevertheless, very complex to the extent that there are other ways to get a bond or bonds exonerated. One would know this if he or she was in fact well versed in the trade.

I have won motions in open court based on part on the laws of another state restricting private civil contract enforcement. In other words, it is possible to get a bond exonerated without taking a chance, which is the prudent way to avoid unecessary exposure to risk and liability.

If one is to move forward in this trade then that person must not just have an understanding of codified law, but he or she must have a working knowledge of published case cites relating to the codified laws in order to gain a wider understanding of how to operate within the confines of applicable laws.

This relates directly to Kentucky if said state disallowed or otherwise interfered with the ..."convenant not to interfere with a bondsman's right to rearrest a principal."

In closing, one would be remiss in not exploring alternative solutions to problems or otherwise offering comments that have absolutely no bearing on the matter--such as suggesting silence for disagreement--at hand and therefore should not be considered as having any weight towards a workable conclusion and therefore not controlling; however, if you make a statement, in direct response to another stated postition, that is beyond contestation, I will be the first to concede to your point and even thank you for the contribution.

Incidentally, the figurative walls you mentioned are up, and this point has been used to postively effect the outcome of moving papers. Interestingly, I didn't have to "wake up" and find the wall but rather saw it coming and developed alternatives to legally deal with it.

I look forward to your resonse, thebishopp.

Rex

I did read the amendement introduced to KRS and mistakenly believed it had passed, I learned from PERSONAL experience that it did not pass back in February when my people went to Kentucky and checked in with the Sheriff prior to attempting to make a recovery, I have already been through this and gained my knowledge first hand, I am well aware that Law Enforcement sometimes over looks the Law and allows recoveries contrary to State Law, my experience with Law Enforcement has been largely positive and I always give LEO's the respect they are due.

It's obvious that I'm spinning my wheels here so we will have to agree to disagree.

Best of Luck

Chuck Jordan

Please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, but just because a bill was enacted on a web site it does not necessarily follow that a governor signed it into law.

A case in point is California's SB1744. If you look on the senate site it indicates that it was enacted, but the Terminator vetoed it and it is therefore not a law.

This isn't meant to reargue the Kentucky issue, I'm just seeking clarification on the bill to law process.

Rex

Ok here we go LOL.

First off let me also compliment you on your ability to "present a well organized and articulated point of view".

My background was initially in Military, then Civilian Law Enforcement, Private Sector Security and Event Security, then single and multi-unit retail management for several large retailers, the highest single-unit store producing over 12 million in sales a year (this included total p&l management, personnel, loss prevention, etc. etc. etc.) During this time I was also used as a troubleshooter to analyze and fix issues in districts which were having issues with individual units not performing to standards.
In all areas I was very good at my job. Perhaps a little too much so as I tend to be somewhat vigorous in my endeavors.

I left the last because it was more work then you get paid to do. Anything less then 60k a year for that is not worth it in fact, I have to say I'd rather be shot at.

I am an ASP certified instructor (8 years) as well as a Wing Chun Instructor (10 years instructing - 20 years practicing) and have have had to instruct in the various dangers of applying such instruction. Vicarious liability being what it is today. I have also successfully presented and argued the liability inherent in utilizing impact weapons in the chain of force as well as the liability of not having that option between oc and firearm (our chief was opposed to the expandable baton) I have successfully argued and won against the local KY city attorney on interpretation of KRS in regards to law enforcement and various employment law.

I have also argued and won in civil employment and EEOC violations. Note that in both regards I did not have an attorney.

In all my experiences I have discovered that the principals remain the same no matter what. Master the principals and you can learn anything.

No doubt there are many who's experience and training exceed my own. However I am not exactly wet behind the ears when it comes to the Law, civil and criminal. I am also not naive to the fact that when it comes to the Law, money and power is a determining factor in it's interpretation.

Now I will say this. You are right that my critcism was not constructive in regards to organization. That was because I did not intend it as criticism, merely an example of a situation which appears to be prevelant in this industry. That is not to say that people won't work together and there are some who are genuinely interested in helping fellow people in the industry. However I believe there are more who are more interested in helping others only so far as it helps themselves. I am not saying that is wrong, merely pointing it out. Good or Bad are merely aspects of one's personally opinion of thing or another beings actions.

As far as organizing. I was also responsible for the attempt to employ collective bargaining at my department as I foresaw that as the only real way to solve the internal corruption problems we were having. Many officers were "bought" off and sometimes I entertain the thought that I should have accepted such an offer myself (though, probably due to a bit of narcacism, I do like being able to look at myself in the mirror). The problem was the fact that people's greed (or fear in this case) got in the way of the good of all. There are incidents that I am not able to speak of in such an open forum. The point is that I also have experience in such attempts to unify individuals as well as the civil laws pertaining to such.

As far as to the relevance... if you wish to truly avoid being "hammered out" of existence than you will eventually need to do so. Though I personally think that will not happen. I have faith that in general the greed will prevent such a thing, untill someone comes along with enough money, power, and influence to force a unification. Untill that time I will continue along as I always have. I help when and if able and usually do not expect a lot in return (I still got to put food on the table you know).

I am suggesting that individuals who wish to preach on how things can't get done are better off staying silent as that is much more constructive then wasting time with negativity. But if people feel the need to take what my training calls a vicitimized attitude then fine. I for one have heard too much of it in other areas besides this one, and usually from the people I was firing.

I just read the post by Chuck and wholeheartedly agree with him and how he handles the situation in KY. In fact, that was a lot more constructive then posts of blanket statements not to recover in KY and that it is perilous to do so because it is a "no hunt" state.

To know the law you must also know EXACTLY what is written. For one with much experience in both Civil and Criminal law, I am surprised that it appears you do not know that. No doubt we both have seen incidents that a judgement was reached, or a person was freed, due to the WORDING of a law, ordinance, regulation.

There was much talk here about what could or could not be done. I merely put up the exact wording to dispell any myths or fabrications of what it actually states. Though I can agree, without quoting word for word the exact statute, it makes it much easier for people to speculate and voice biased uninformed opinions. Personally I like to know rather than think I know.

I must say you are good at thinly veiled attempts at insult. LOL... I suppose I should be offened but I must confess it gave me a laugh and brought a smile to my face and I thank you for that. In so far as my using what you so colorfully like to call a "made for tv" line. I think perhaps you may have some issues there and maybe are "meant to mask certain feelings of inadequate achievement". I am well aware of most of the negative aspects of a recently made popular bounty hunter in hawaii (where I was born and raised by the way).

Cliche's are what they are for a reason. They are statements or saying which have been used so much they have become common. Perhaps there is a reason they have been used so many times yes?

Now as far as the rest of your post regarding understanding the law and not just knowing the wording... I have no disagreement. Nor did I recommend not exploring other options. What I stated (and why I have to repeat it...) was a stance against those who would rather say it is not possible and trying to submit opinion, rather than actual law to support their fatalism, than finding ways to accomplish the task.

Now it appears you are changing your original stance on Kentucky as explified by your previous post and summary:

"The bottom line herein is whether or not YOU want to be a test case with all the unpleasantries, expensive lawyers and maybe even a civil suit when and if you beat the case."

which I disagreed with.

now your new point of: "In closing, one would be remiss in not exploring alternative solutions to problems..."

I agree with.

Note: A good idea when discussing something is not to start out by saying the tree is red, changing your statement to say it is brown, then trying to say you said that all along. That trick only works on people who are not paying attention to what you are saying.

Realize that you are merely finding ways to work within an ever closing space which is getting smaller and smaller without any resistance. Perhaps not in either of our lifetimes, but it is coming. Such things have happened in other aspects of life as well.... a good example is the american indians. Ironically it was their inability to organize collectively which allowed what happened. The ones who stood up individually to make change were easily crushed as they lacked support of the majority. A lesson there I think.

_________________
-The Solution-
Indiana Agency #: PI20700211
Indiana Notary Public - Exp: 12/20/13

"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong. That is your oath."
- Kingdom of Heaven

http://www.kentucky.gov/

http://justice.ky.gov/

http://lrc.ky.gov/home.htm

The last you can also view Kentucky Administrative Regualtions as well as the KRS.. it is unofficial and certified copies should be obtained prior to offficial use.

From this page you can also find out about the codification of statutes in Kentucky and tables indicating where enacted legislation was codified.

_________________
-The Solution-
Indiana Agency #: PI20700211
Indiana Notary Public - Exp: 12/20/13

"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong. That is your oath."
- Kingdom of Heaven

Mr. Swain,

Clearly you have life experience and the ability to convey your experience by and through the written word, and, at this point in the thread, I really don't have anything else to offer that would be considered beneficial towards further exploration of the Kentucky matter, other than to say my first post was urging people to be careful--while the second was responsive.

The organization issue has come up, but the will, method and vehicle are not there or are not visible or, like you said, greed is the main barrier.

It would seem to me that your background is conducive to implementing such ideas into action, and perhaps this notion may serve as a basis for new threads.

With that said, I have to cave into what my body is telling me and hit the rack before tonight.

Kindest Regards,

Rex

How a Bill becomes Law

Updated February 25, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAKING KENTUCKY'S LAWS

Only a member of the General Assembly can introduce legislation. Legislators, however, often introduce bills suggested by other individuals or organizations. Bills vary in length from a single paragraph to hundreds of pages. The Constitution requires that a bill relate to only one subject, which must be stated in the title. Bills that don't adhere to this rule have been ruled unconstitutional.


Some bills pass with little discussion. Others are subjected to much examination and undergo major changes before becoming law. Amendments may be proposed by a committee or any legislator, but bills can be amended only by a vote of the House or Senate. If changes alter a bill significantly in committee, these changes may be rolled into the bill as one amendment, called the committee substitute.


All bills are introduced by delivering them to the House or Senate Clerk, after which they are referred by the Committee on Committees to an appropriate standing committee. Several weeks may pass before a bill is reported out of committee and returned to the floor.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Introduction & Committee Referral
A bill may be introduced in the House or Senate.
Each bill is assigned a number, read by title only and sponsor, and referred to a standing committee by the Committee on Committees.
2. Committee Consideration

Committee meetings are open to the public.
A bill may be reported out of committee with one of the following reports: favorable; with amendments; favorable with committee substitute; unfavorable; or, in the Senate, without opinion.
A committee can essentially kill a bill by failing to act on it.
3. First Reading

When a committee reports a bill favorably, the bill has its first reading and is placed in the Calendar for the following day.
If a committee reports a bill unfavorably or without opinion, the bill is not likely to go any further.
4. Second Reading: to Rules
The bill is read by title a second time and sent to the Rules Committee.
The Rules Committee may send the bill back to a committee or place it in the Orders of the Day for a specific day.
5. Third Reading & Passage
"I move that House Bill 100 be taken from its place in the Orders of the Day, read for the third time by the title only and placed upon its passage."

This motion is made by the Majority Floor Leader and initiates floor debate on a bill.
Following debate and amendments, a final vote on the bill is taken.
To pass, a bill must be approved by at least two-fifths of the members of the chamber (40 representatives or 16 senators) and a majority of the members present and voting.
If a bill contains an appropriation or emergency clause, it must be approved by a majority of the members elected to each house (51 representatives and 20 senators).
Proposed amendments to the Kentucky Constitution require a three-fifths vote of each chamber (60 representatives and 23 senators).
6. What Happens Next?

If a bill is defeated, that is the end of it unless two members who voted against it request its reconsideration and a majority approves.
If a bill passes in one house, it is sent to the other chamber where it follows the same procedure.
Both chambers must agree on the final form of each bill. If either house fails to concur in amendments made by the other, the difference must be reconciled by a conference committee of senators and representatives.
Compromises agreed to by conference committees are then subject to approval by both houses.
7. Enrollment
After passage by both houses, a bill is read carefully to make sure the wording is correct.
The bill is signed by the presiding member of each house and sent to the Governor.
8. Governor's Action
The Governor may sign a bill, permit it to become law without signing it, or veto it.
The veto may be overridden by a majority of the members (51 representatives and 20 senators).
The Governor has 10 days (excluding Sundays) to act on a bill after it has been received.
9. Becoming Law
The Constitution specifies that an act becomes law 90 days after the General Assembly adjourns, unless it contains a later effective date or an emergency clause.
Bills with an emergency clause must be approved by a constitutional majority (half the members plus one) and become effective immediately upon approval of the Governor.
The fastest a bill can pass through both houses of the legislature is five days, the minimum time required for three readings in each house. Most bills take longer to complete the process, however.
NOTE: It is possible for a bill to complete the legislative process in four days through the use of companion bills. Companion bills are identical bills introduced at the same time in both houses. After a bill passes one house and is in the Calendar of the other house, it is substituted for the identical bill in the other house, placing it in the Orders of the Day for its third reading. Few companion bills are introduced during a legislative session.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESOLUTIONS
Besides bills, the legislature may express its feelings in simple, concurrent, or joint resolutions.

Simple resolutions require action by only one house. They are used to handle procedure, organization, or to express the sense of the chamber on a particular matter. Frequently, the House or Senate passes a simple resolution to adjourn in honor or memory of an individual.
Concurrent resolutions adopted by both houses are used to mandate legislative studies and send messages to other branches of government. They are sent to the Governor, but do not have the force of law.
Joint resolutions are used to ratify amendments to the U.S. Constitution, to direct an executive branch agency to conduct a study, or to enact a temporary law. Joint resolutions have the force of law, must pass both chambers, be sent to the Governor, and filed with the Secretary of State.

_________________
-The Solution-
Indiana Agency #: PI20700211
Indiana Notary Public - Exp: 12/20/13

"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong. That is your oath."
- Kingdom of Heaven